Here is a Theory of Everything I have come up with. I don't have the time or the necessary mathematical background to properly develop it so I’m sending it out into the world. I think that this idea is original but I’m not a physicist so I really don’t know. The only thing I ask is that if you have the ability to fully develop this theory (are a theoretical physicist) and that this idea could be the Theory of Everything that you collaborate with me in it’s development. Here goes…
Matter is simply the organization of energy within 4 dimensions. Every particle is simply a stable form of energy that occupies a given amount of space. However, it is not that the energy really "occupies" the space completely but rather that it is not possible for any additional energy to occupy the same region in space and the whole assembly to remain stable. Similarly, as there is only a finite amount of energy that can occupy a given space and remain stable, there is also a lower limit of energy that can occupy a given region of space and remain stable. However, with stable particles there is a surrounding could of energy that is not of sufficient level to be mutually exclusive to other energy occupying the same region.
This implication reveals the very nature of gravity. Take two hypothetical particles with a given distance from each other. Since they are both surrounded by a cloud of energy it follows that the greatest energy exists in the region between them. Furthermore, since the energy density of the cloud drops off at a cubic rate inversely to the distance from the center of the particle it follow that the highest level of energy would occur between the two particles just outside the mutually exclusive region of energy that we commonly define as the actual volume of the particle. The energy level as one approaches an infinitesimally small distance to the outside surface of the mutually exclusive region of energy (MERE hereafter) is just below the level required to be mutually exclusive. The energy contributed the energy cloud at a finite distance from the other particle is sufficient to raise the overall level of energy in that inner shell to that which is required to be mutually exclusive. The particle gain mass (stabilized energy) and the center of mass shifts towards the other particle. The gain in mass is what is commonly referred to as "inertial mass". The change in the location of the center of mass is the observation of movement between two particles that we refer to as gravity. There is no exchange of "gravitons" or warping of space-time, simply a more stable configuration of energy between two energy clouds with mutually exclusive regions.
This line of thinking begs the question why the two particles do not continue to "gravitationally" attract each other until they are one. The reason is again stability. From a subatomic standpoint quarks and other particles (Remember, particle is simply another was of saying mutually exclusive region of space) form stable configurations where the region is spatially balanced with (relatively) stable levels of energy at all points. These conglomerations of MERE's form what is known as protons and neutrons (and antimatter as well, simply a different but analogous configuration of energy). Still working on the details about the mechanics of the stability between the nucleus and the electron cloud...
This theory also explains why photons are affected by gravity although they have no mass. It is not that there is a gravitational warping of space that alters the course of a mass less particle but rather a higher level of energy on the side of the moving energy cloud that faces a source of gravity (energy could). The stability of energy occurs more frequently on the side that experts more energy thereby resulting in a perceived motion toward the direction of "gravity". The energy absorbed by the photon simply converted into a higher energy wavelength (gravitational blueshift). Obviously, if the source of the gravity is from the opposite direction than the direction in which the photon is traveling then there is a more frequent occurrence of stable energy at the rear of the energy cloud. The loss in energy is converted into a lower energy wave length (gravitational redshift).
Also, this explains why it is possible to create particles with strong gravitational (energy) fields.
Another implication is that since there are energy fields that are ubiquitous and constantly in flux, it makes sense that within a small amount of space such as near Plank Length, there would be sufficient levels of energy to create mutually exclusive regions of energy even if there are relatively unstable.
As the universe continues to expand from a rough point of singularity there will be a constant trend toward disintegration of stable particles into “massless” particles such as photons. These photons will continue to experience redshift since the center of “mass” or at that point energy will be roughly the same as the point of singularity. Furthermore, because we have determined that gravity is simply the interaction of energy fields, there is no need for there to be particles that have mass to exist for there to be the effect of “gravity”. Also, because it is impossible for each photon to be traveling in exactly the opposite direction of the point of singularity, each photon will experience a gravitational pull that is slightly perpendicular to the direction of it’s travel. This phenomenon will continue until the direction of the photon or other massless particle is eventually facing roughly the direction of singularity. At the point at which the direction of the photon is tangent to the point of singularity the photon will cease to experience redshift and will begin to experience blue shift. All of these particles will continue to increase in energy due to the increase in aggregate energy (gravity) in the direction the particle is facing. This will continue until all the particles slam into each other at the point of singularity. Since we know that there is only so much energy that can occupy a given region of space and remain stable, we will observe a “big bang”…again.

If you can't do the math, don't waste your time theorizing. You have created a hodge podge of theories. I have proven -mathematically- an infinite amount of mass can occupy a finite space. This blows your theory right out of the water.

Response to Bill...I think that while you may be able to prove mathematically an infinite amount of mass (energy) in a finite amount of space, that is not what we observe in nature. That is the reason why black holes eject high-level radiation instead of simply compacting into infinitely dense point-like structures. I think you may be right about the math thing though...I should probably just "suck-it-up" and crack open a few math books. Thanks for the constructive criticism!

bill wrote:If you can't do the math, don't waste your time theorizing. You have created a hodge podge of theories.

His statement "gravity is simply the interaction of energy fields" leaves much to the imagination considering no one knows what "gravity", "energy" and "fields" actually are.

I have proven -mathematically- an infinite amount of mass can occupy a finite space.

Schwarzschild just might have disagreed with you. How do you define "mass" and "space" mathematically?

This blows your theory right out of the water.

I'd like to see the details of your theory proving "an infinite amount of mass can occupy a finite space" because it seems to me it would have about as much rational support as that provided by elephants on the back of a turtle swimming in a sea of nothingness.

Oh and by the way are you sure that we have 4dimensions? I mean in physics we do, but if we are talking about space and matter its a whole different story. I think there are up to 22 dimensions that have been proven in math.

My math proof of infinite mass in a finite volume proves that a solid mass such as a BB contains enough energy that if unleashed all at once would create a big bang. Such a bang would cause the initial mass to accelerate well beyond the speed of light -also proven to be both finite and infinite by me- and create further infinite masses that would cause further big bangs like a fireworks display, thus creating an infinite COSMOS of infinite size and age made up of an infinite number of infinite sized universes. The 14 billion year estimate of our universe is from the last exploding BB -the remnant radiation that has been observed is the smoke-.

I am not just a mathematician.

I am an international consulting engineer.

No offense but you could not afford me to do the math for you.

By the way the books you would need would require National Security Clearance from the Federal Government. You will not find the math I do in any book. Nor will you find the chemistry or physics. The Law books will be available soon however, but my name will not be on them. You will even see plays and movies written by me without my name written on them.

To cacao:

There are an infinite number of dimensions, I counted them twice just to be sure

cthebobs wrote:Here is a Theory of Everything I have come up with. I don't have the time or the necessary mathematical background to properly develop it so I’m sending it out into the world. I think that this idea is original but I’m not a physicist so I really don’t know. The only thing I ask is that if you have the ability to fully develop this theory (are a theoretical physicist) and that this idea could be the Theory of Everything that you collaborate with me in it’s development. Here goes… Matter is simply the organization of energy within 4 dimensions.

"Simply"? Undefined terms: matter, energy, dimension. How is "energy" "organized" in "4 dimensions" to make "matter"? Note: Einstein hypothesized that matter and energy are the same thing.

Every particle is simply a stable form of energy that occupies a given amount of space.

"Simply"? Undefined terms: particle, energy, space. What is a "stable" form of "energy", or is your statement a definition?

However, it is not that the energy really "occupies" the space completely but rather that it is not possible for any additional energy to occupy the same region in space and the whole assembly to remain stable.

Undefined terms: energy, space. Does this mean that energy can be added to a region of space but that it is not stable, or does it mean that energy cannot be added to the region of space because it is full?

Similarly, as there is only a finite amount of energy that can occupy a given space and remain stable, there is also a lower limit of energy that can occupy a given region of space and remain stable.

Undefined terms: energy, space. Why is there a lower limit on the amount of energy which can occupy a region of space and be stable?

However, with stable particles there is a surrounding could of energy that is not of sufficient level to be mutually exclusive to other energy occupying the same region.

Undefined terms: particle, energy. What makes you think that this cloud of energy would not make the region unstable?

This implication reveals the very nature of gravity.

Undefined term: gravity. How does it reveal the nature of gravity?

Take two hypothetical particles with a given distance from each other.

Undefined term: particle.

Since they are both surrounded by a cloud of energy it follows that the greatest energy exists in the region between them.

Undefined term: energy. Are you saying that the energy density falls off as the cube of the distance, so you are adding terms such as E1/r1^3 and E2/r2^3 such that r1+r2=d?

Furthermore, since the energy density of the cloud drops off at a cubic rate inversely to the distance from the center of the particle it follow that the highest level of energy would occur between the two particles just outside the mutually exclusive region of energy that we commonly define as the actual volume of the particle.

Undefined terms: energy, particle. Do you think the volume of the particle is defined by the Schwarzschild radius?

The energy level as one approaches an infinitesimally small distance to the outside surface of the mutually exclusive region of energy (MERE hereafter) is just below the level required to be mutually exclusive.

Undefined term: energy. How do you know it is just below the mutually exclusive level?

The energy contributed the energy cloud at a finite distance from the other particle is sufficient to raise the overall level of energy in that inner shell to that which is required to be mutually exclusive.

This line of thinking begs the question why the two particles do not continue to "gravitationally" attract each other until they are one.

Undefined terms: particles, gravitation. Why don't they become "one"?

The reason is again stability.

How?

From a subatomic standpoint quarks and other particles (Remember, particle is simply another was of saying mutually exclusive region of space) form stable configurations where the region is spatially balanced with (relatively) stable levels of energy at all points.

Still working on the details about the mechanics of the stability between the nucleus and the electron cloud...

Undefined terms: nucleus, "electron cloud". Note: Bohr worked this out a long time ago.

This theory also explains why photons are affected by gravity although they have no mass.

Undefined terms: photon, gravity, mass. Note: Einstein considered photons to travel along paths which are geodesics. Apparently you deny the entire concept of curved space-time.

It is not that there is a gravitational warping of space that alters the course of a mass less particle but rather a higher level of energy on the side of the moving energy cloud that faces a source of gravity (energy could).

Obviously, if the source of the gravity is from the opposite direction than the direction in which the photon is traveling then there is a more frequent occurrence of stable energy at the rear of the energy cloud.

Undefined terms: gravity, photon, energy.

The loss in energy is converted into a lower energy wave length (gravitational redshift).

Undefined terms: energy, "gravitational redshift". How is the photon redshifted?

Also, this explains why it is possible to create particles with strong gravitational (energy) fields.

Undefined terms: particle, gravitational, energy, field. How does it explain the creation of particles in a strong gravitational field?

Another implication is that since there are energy fields that are ubiquitous and constantly in flux, it makes sense that within a small amount of space such as near Plank Length, there would be sufficient levels of energy to create mutually exclusive regions of energy even if there are relatively unstable.

Furthermore, because we have determined that gravity is simply the interaction of energy fields, there is no need for there to be particles that have mass to exist for there to be the effect of “gravity”.

"Simply"? Undefined terms: gravity, energy, field, particle, mass. Are you saying that a universe only having photons (with zero rest mass) would still manifest gravitation?

Also, because it is impossible for each photon to be traveling in exactly the opposite direction of the point of singularity, each photon will experience a gravitational pull that is slightly perpendicular to the direction of it’s travel.

Undefined terms: photon, singularity, gravitational.

This phenomenon will continue until the direction of the photon or other massless particle is eventually facing roughly the direction of singularity.

This will continue until all the particles slam into each other at the point of singularity.

Undefined terms: particle, singularity, energy, "big bang". Do they all "slam into each other" at the same instant?

Since we know that there is only so much energy that can occupy a given region of space and remain stable, we will observe a “big bang”…again.

Undefined terms: energy space, "big bang". What causes the rebound?

As you should be able to see, because of all the undefined terms you are actually writing about a fantasy world. The problem is that *all* theoretical physicists are writing about a fantasy world, and this makes understanding the universe a *very* difficult task. There is nothing "simple" about it, and none of it actually "makes sense".

Your hypothesis is far too vague to take seriously. But I can say that your "big bang/big crunch" scenario is simplistic, naive- and wrong.

One of your undefined terms is "particle". Culminating in the fall of 1997, I came to understand that a "particle" and a helical wave in space-time are the same thing. It is remarkable that a helical wave has the properties of a particle; and that treating a particle as a helical wave appears compatible with both special relativity and quantum theory.

Have you read my simple proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, the Beal Conjecture, The Proof of the Existence of Frey curves, and the Proof of GODS existence that can all be placed on a normal sized business card.

Energy is an abstract term. For a sentient being, it is defined as that which cannot be seen but detected. E.G. the wind, the ocean waves, flames, etc.

Mass is the "concrete" aggregation of energy fields which a sentient being can use his/her five physical senses to detect.

A field can be thought of as a lattice network of varying energies.

The concrete aggregation must be properly balanced in order to maintain stability.

cthebobs wrote:Here is a Theory of Everything I have come up with. I don't have the time or the necessary mathematical background to properly develop it so I’m sending it out into the world. I think that this idea is original but I’m not a physicist so I really don’t know. The only thing I ask is that if you have the ability to fully develop this theory (are a theoretical physicist) and that this idea could be the Theory of Everything that you collaborate with me in it’s development. Here goes… Matter is simply the organization of energy within 4 dimensions.

"Simply"? Undefined terms: matter, energy, dimension. How is "energy" "organized" in "4 dimensions" to make "matter"? Note: Einstein hypothesized that matter and energy are the same thing.

-Right, well, I guess I'm agreeing with Einstein then. I am not trying to hypothesize exactly how the energy is organized whether it be loops or waves or some other form, only that when energy is organized in some stable form and when that form precludes additional energy from occcupyfing that space then it becomes what we define as a particle.

Every particle is simply a stable form of energy that occupies a given amount of space.

"Simply"? Undefined terms: particle, energy, space. What is a "stable" form of "energy", or is your statement a definition?

-Definition of energy? I honestly do not have one.-Definition of particle? Energy that is in some stable configuration that precludes additional energy from occupying the same region and remaining in that stable configuration.-Definition of space? Again, a really tough one to define. I do not think that it can be warped, I think it is infinite, I do not think it is some kind of ether (aside from that fact that all space contains at least some minimal amount of energy, as far as possible in space given the time from the last big bang)

As far as the interaction between space and time and the phenomenon of time dilation, I think it can be explained by the limit of speed at which energy can travel through space. Under the assumption that matter is simply a stable configuration of energy whether it be loops or waves or some other shape, it follows that the energy within that configuration is spinning, vibrating, or moving in some other manner at the speed of light. (Analogous to a photon) Movement of that particle would force the inner vibrations or waves or loops to travel in their path at a rate faster than the speed of light. Since this is not possible (why is the speed of light a constant ceteres parabus, I have no idea), it forces the energy loop/wave/whatever to travel at a slower rate relative to itself. It takes longer for a loop to complete a full revolution although it actually travels the same distance. Since the loops (I'm going with this configuration since its just easier to explain) are taking longer to complete a full revolution, it follows that the rest of the interactions on a macro scale would also take longer. Meaning interations between and within atoms would take longer and atomic clocks that we put up in space shuttles to measure time dilation would also take a longer time to experience all the interactions. It's not that time actually get warped or dilated for the clock but that all the energy loops that make up all the particles react more slowly resulting in an aggregate slowing in all interations.

However, it is not that the energy really "occupies" the space completely but rather that it is not possible for any additional energy to occupy the same region in space and the whole assembly to remain stable.

Undefined terms: energy, space. Does this mean that energy can be added to a region of space but that it is not stable, or does it mean that energy cannot be added to the region of space because it is full?

-I do not think that the space is actually "full" but rather that a loop of energy occupies that region and that if any addition energy tries to occupy or intersect the same path that the loop cannot remain stable at it's currrent size. Depending on the amount of energy that is added to region, the loop will either gain in size (what we call inertial or gravitational mass), or the loop then converts into a wave form of energy (radiation). I think that every loop also contains a 3 dimensional wave component, the energy level of which is slightly below the level required to be in loop configuration just outside the path of the loop. Which is why when energy is added to the region, it causes the evergy just inside the wave configuration to reconfigure into the loop format.

Similarly, as there is only a finite amount of energy that can occupy a given space and remain stable, there is also a lower limit of energy that can occupy a given region of space and remain stable.

Undefined terms: energy, space. Why is there a lower limit on the amount of energy which can occupy a region of space and be stable?

-I meant stable in the form of a loop. (Why? I honestly have no idea) I do not think there is a lower limit to wave format energy.

However, with stable particles there is a surrounding could of energy that is not of sufficient level to be mutually exclusive to other energy occupying the same region.

Undefined terms: particle, energy. What makes you think that this cloud of energy would not make the region unstable?

Because it is ouside the region.

This implication reveals the very nature of gravity.

Undefined term: gravity. How does it reveal the nature of gravity?

Good call, I should have been more clear. Gravity is the measurable result of the conversion of wave format energy into loop format.

Take two hypothetical particles with a given distance from each other.

Undefined term: particle.

Since they are both surrounded by a cloud of energy it follows that the greatest energy exists in the region between them.

Undefined term: energy. Are you saying that the energy density falls off as the cube of the distance, so you are adding terms such as E1/r1^3 and E2/r2^3 such that r1+r2=d?

Exactly.

Furthermore, since the energy density of the cloud drops off at a cubic rate inversely to the distance from the center of the particle it follow that the highest level of energy would occur between the two particles just outside the mutually exclusive region of energy that we commonly define as the actual volume of the particle.

Undefined terms: energy, particle. Do you think the volume of the particle is defined by the Schwarzschild radius?

I honestly don't know. I would love to have the time to study existing theories in detail so I could see exactly what models fit in with my overall idea.

The energy level as one approaches an infinitesimally small distance to the outside surface of the mutually exclusive region of energy (MERE hereafter) is just below the level required to be mutually exclusive.

Undefined term: energy. How do you know it is just below the mutually exclusive level?

I don't. That is the main hinge-point of my hypothesis. I would love to either an experiment that could test that hypothesis, but it would require somehow being able to create the lowest level of loop form of energy and some how test the energy level just outside the path. Pretty tall order and I don't have a particle accelerator.

The energy contributed the energy cloud at a finite distance from the other particle is sufficient to raise the overall level of energy in that inner shell to that which is required to be mutually exclusive.

The change in the location of the center of mass is the observation of movement between two particles that we refer to as gravity.

Undefined terms: mass, particle, gravity. This does not make sense because the particle is no longer radially symmetrical. Is this what you are implying?

-Good catch! No, I think that the particle keeps the same symmetry. I’m not sure if this would shift the center of mass of a single loop, but maybe that’s why we don’t find just loops of energy in nature. Since they form a conglomeration in nature such as a neutron, the individual circumference of the loop being effected primarily, the one closest to the “gravity” increases the most but it cannot increase in the direction of the other loops because that would not be stable. Therefore the increase in the circumference causes a shift in the center of the loop most being effected. However, I think that this shift in symmetry is corrected by the wave-format component of the loop also increasing in energy causing the surrounding wave-format energies of the surrounding loops to increase to the point to where they are also converted into loop-format energy until the entire system (neutron) is balanced. I think that this would happen close to the speed of light for an object moving very slowly and would happen very slowly for an object moving close to the speed of light. So yes, an object moving close to the speed of light would look stretched out as theorized by Einstein (but I think my rational why is a little different)

There is no exchange of "gravitons" or warping of space-time, simply a more stable configuration of energy between two energy clouds with mutually exclusive regions.

-I don’t know why wave format energy converts into loop format, but that is the mechanism by which we observe gravity in particles. As far as wave format energy effecting other wave format energy such as a photon, I think the interaction is simply additive. There is more wave format energy in the direction of where-ever there is more loop-format energy. The photon, which I believe is a vibrating string component with a 3 dimensional wave component (again, with the wave component has an energy level just outside the string component that is just below the level required to be in the string format) interacts with additional wave energy and boosts the actual amount of the string energy component. This results in a higher energy level of the photon, which is what we call gravitation blue-shift. Therefore, wave-format energy has a tendency to “move” towards massive objects.

This line of thinking begs the question why the two particles do not continue to "gravitationally" attract each other until they are one.

Undefined terms: particles, gravitation. Why don't they become "one"?

The reason is again stability.

How?

From a subatomic standpoint quarks and other particles (Remember, particle is simply another was of saying mutually exclusive region of space) form stable configurations where the region is spatially balanced with (relatively) stable levels of energy at all points.

Still working on the details about the mechanics of the stability between the nucleus and the electron cloud...

Undefined terms: nucleus, "electron cloud". Note: Bohr worked this out a long time ago.

-I mean exactly how the wave format energy component of the loop format energy (nucleus) interacts with the string format energy component and wave format component of the electron.

This theory also explains why photons are affected by gravity although they have no mass.

Undefined terms: photon, gravity, mass. Note: Einstein considered photons to travel along paths which are geodesics. Apparently you deny the entire concept of curved space-time.

Yes, I think that it is result of the conversion of wave format energy into string format

It is not that there is a gravitational warping of space that alters the course of a mass less particle but rather a higher level of energy on the side of the moving energy cloud that faces a source of gravity (energy could).

I think I’ve explained a little better in the rest of my responses above.

The stability of energy occurs more frequently on the side that experts more energy thereby resulting in a perceived motion toward the direction of "gravity".

Undefined terms: energy, gravity. Is it a "perceived" or "actual" motion?

Actual motion, but most laypersons perceive gravity as a pulling force. I wanted to clarify that it is a motion that is the result of a different configuration of energy that results in a shift in center of mass.

The energy absorbed by the photon simply converted into a higher energy wavelength (gravitational blueshift).

Obviously, if the source of the gravity is from the opposite direction than the direction in which the photon is traveling then there is a more frequent occurrence of stable energy at the rear of the energy cloud.

Undefined terms: gravity, photon, energy.

“”

The loss in energy is converted into a lower energy wave length (gravitational redshift).

Undefined terms: energy, "gravitational redshift". How is the photon redshifted?

“”

Also, this explains why it is possible to create particles with strong gravitational (energy) fields.

Undefined terms: particle, gravitational, energy, field. How does it explain the creation of particles in a strong gravitational field?

Wave format energy is raised to a high enough level to convert into loop format.

Another implication is that since there are energy fields that are ubiquitous and constantly in flux, it makes sense that within a small amount of space such as near Plank Length, there would be sufficient levels of energy to create mutually exclusive regions of energy even if there are relatively unstable.

Furthermore, because we have determined that gravity is simply the interaction of energy fields, there is no need for there to be particles that have mass to exist for there to be the effect of “gravity”.

"Simply"? Undefined terms: gravity, energy, field, particle, mass. Are you saying that a universe only having photons (with zero rest mass) would still manifest gravitation?

-Absolutely, because gravitation is the observation of the interaction of wave format energy, of which photons have both a wave format component and a string format component. Also, because there is no lower limit to energy, the wave format component would still interact however slight with the wave format component of another photon no matter how far apart they are.

Also, because it is impossible for each photon to be traveling in exactly the opposite direction of the point of singularity, each photon will experience a gravitational pull that is slightly perpendicular to the direction of it’s travel.

Undefined terms: photon, singularity, gravitational.

-See above responses

This phenomenon will continue until the direction of the photon or other massless particle is eventually facing roughly the direction of singularity.

This will continue until all the particles slam into each other at the point of singularity.

Undefined terms: particle, singularity, energy, "big bang". Do they all "slam into each other" at the same instant?

-I don’t think that would be necessary for there to be a “big bang” or probable. Since all of the energy is racing towards the center of mass (at this point all wave-format and string format energy), loop format energy will begin to appear again as the concentration of wave-format energy increases. Early arrivers will either continue past the center if there is not sufficient “gravity” at that point. However, yes, I think that the majority of energy will return at roughly the same time. I do not think the timing needs to be instant for that amount of energy all slamming together to result in a big-bang scenario.

Since we know that there is only so much energy that can occupy a given region of space and remain stable, we will observe a “big bang”…again.

Undefined terms: energy space, "big bang". What causes the rebound?

The string, and wave energy at this point will all try to occupy the same region of space. Wave energy at this point will be sufficient to create an immense core of loop energy, however, it will be traveling at near the speed of light so light a supermassive fission reaction it will fly apart again in the opposite direction. However, because there will still be such a high level of wave energy, loop energy or matter will be able to form again, but travel outward.

As you should be able to see, because of all the undefined terms you are actually writing about a fantasy world. The problem is that *all* theoretical physicists are writing about a fantasy world, and this makes understanding the universe a *very* difficult task. There is nothing "simple" about it, and none of it actually "makes sense".

Your hypothesis is far too vague to take seriously. But I can say that your "big bang/big crunch" scenario is simplistic, naive- and wrong.

--You’re right! Well, about the vague part. I still think that the idea valid though, and now that you’ve forced me to be a little more clear I realize that what I was talking about was string theory. I just don’t know if my version is the same as the current model.

One of your undefined terms is "particle". Culminating in the fall of 1997, I came to understand that a "particle" and a helical wave in space-time are the same thing. It is remarkable that a helical wave has the properties of a particle; and that treating a particle as a helical wave appears compatible with both special relativity and quantum theory.

A particle as a helical wave. Close but no cigar. It also depends on which particle and in what orbital. There are an infinite number of Nature's forces yet to be discovered. This is what I have proven. All created by GOD to keep us from having nothing new to learn.

bill wrote:A particle as a helical wave. Close but no cigar. It also depends on which particle and in what orbital. There are an infinite number of Nature's forces yet to be discovered. This is what I have proven. All created by GOD to keep us from having nothing new to learn.

Are you *certain* that you are not afflicted with delusions of grandeur?

Obviously you have no understanding of how a helical wave is compatible with special relativity.

Last edited by robert 46 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

bill wrote:Have you read my simple proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, the Beal Conjecture, The Proof of the Existence of Frey curves, and the Proof of GODS existence that can all be placed on a normal sized business card.

No.

Energy is an abstract term. For a sentient being, it is defined as that which cannot be seen but detected. E.G. the wind, the ocean waves, flames, etc.

Exactly- "energy" is "defined".

Mass is the "concrete" aggregation of energy fields which a sentient being can use his/her five physical senses to detect.

Another definition.

A field can be thought of as a lattice network of varying energies.

Yet another definition. What makes you think these definitions are correct?

The concrete aggregation must be properly balanced in order to maintain stability.

Could you take a look at my last responses? I'd like to get your opinion since I clarified some things. You clearly are not going to accomplish anything talking with Bill, he's clearly already proven everything humanly possible...but I think some constructive criticism directed towards me (a humble mortal) might actually yield something relevant. Thanks!